Should Defensive Blast be altered in Conan 2nd?

[slaughterj]

Sutek, address my point about all attacks not requiring a free action. If you don't, you will have clearly shown that your argument was wrong. You can try to change the discussion to another element, but that still won't mean that attacks do not require a standard action in all situations. Therefore, defensive blast as a free action can still be an attack.

Okay, attacks not requiring a free action? I;ll adress that by saying that it doesn't make any sense. Attacks DON'T require a Free Action, so I have no idea what I'm supposed to adress.

LOL, corrected above, I meant to type standard action

It's simple. If OppSac. is read such that it requires and attack, and since DB doesn't state that it is actually an attack, the two are therefore incompatible and cannot be used in conjunction with one another. It's really just that simple.

That would be great if it were that simple.

You folks 'have made countless opinionated posts that have no actual citation of rules.

We have cited rules. You have cited rules. And at this point, it seems there is a big cloud. So it things were presented more simply by all positions on the matter, greater clarity might be achieved.

In favor of DB being an attack, we have:
1. Common sense. While this might not be a rule in the book, it is common sense that when someone acts against another in a damaging fashion, that such action is an attack.
2. On page 185, DB is described as a counter-attack. Sure, there are no further rules on what that means, but that is not necessary where the plain meaning is clear, that it is an attack.
3. On page 185, it can be taken when he takes an AOO. That is certainly not clear, but is suggestive.
4. On page 185, the save is set by the sorceror's magic attack roll. On page 194, the magic attack roll is amde when you attempt to injure another with your magic or often to compel another. Further, by its very name, magic ATTACK roll, that indicates what it is used for is attacks.
5. Just because DB is not a standard action does not mean it is not an attack. The rules include others situations such as AOOs and follow-up Cleaves, which do not require a standard action and are clearly an attack.

Given the foregoing, DB appears to be an attack (#1-4), is not automatically ruled out as an attack because it is a free action (#5), and therefore common sense indicates that it is an attack.

At this point Sutek, if you could also provide a succinct summary of the reasons it should not be considered an attack, maybe we can achieve some resolution on this matter to your satisfaction (everyone else seems to agree it is an attack, but hey, maybe everyone else is wrong).

 

[Oly]

It's simple. If OppSac. is read such that it requires and attack, and since DB doesn't state that it is actually an attack, the two are therefore incompatible and cannot be used in conjunction with one another. It's really just that simple.

But I don't think Opp. Sac. should be read that way.

The first paragraph seems fairly clear when it says, "slay an opponent by sorcery or combat".

The confusion is then brought in with the reading of "magic, melee or ranged attacks."

If I say "I can get there by car, surface or underground trains" then it's clear that "trains" doesn't apply to the first option of "car".

Likewise in the sentence "magic, melee or ranged attacks" "attacks" isn't connected with "magic". It could be but it doesn't have to be. The sentence is just a neater way of saying "magic, melee attack or ranged attack."

Reading the 2nd sentence the way the rest of us all seem to do also fits in with the first paragraph of the feat, slaying by sorcery or combat.

 

[slaughterj]

It's simple. If OppSac. is read such that it requires and attack, and since DB doesn't state that it is actually an attack, the two are therefore incompatible and cannot be used in conjunction with one another. It's really just that simple.

But I don't think Opp. Sac. should be read that way.

Good points Oly. In order to establish that Opp. Sacrifice doesn't work with DB, one would have to establish (1) that Opp. Sacrifice is limited to attacks, which doesn't appear to be the case, and (2) that DB is not an attack, in spite of common sense. That's a hard path to take.

 

[Foxworthy]

Question for Sutek...

Is death touch an attack? It doesn't say anywhere in it as being an attack. So does that not count as being slayed by magic?

What about draw forth the heart?

What magic attacks are in Conan?

You're whole argument that it's not attack is because there is no roll to attack. Which is rather incorrect. Some attack require only saving throws which Defensive Blast does allow.

The fact that you won't let in refrences from d20 shows that you have a very narrow viewpoint. Conan is an OGL game, as such it is built ont he rules from d20. Some things are missing fromt he rules, some things are different. When something is different it's pointed out in the rule book.

You've clung to a idea that Defensive Blast isn't attack so it must be balanced since it can't be abused because it's not spelt out whwthe ror not it's an attack. Despite the fact it's called a counter attack and like many spells in d20 that are considered an attack require a saving throw.

Anyway since you claim we can't comprehend the feat despite that the rest of use understand it please show me where it says in the quote that it has to be a magical attack?

If I read the quote and take the words only as you do it just says magic. Defensive Blast is magic.

So the feat says you can use Magic or melee or ranged attack... not a magical attack, melee attack or ranged attack...

Youa re adding a attack tot he end of magic in the sentance that isn't there. It's implied and can be assumed to be there, but so is any time. If any time is false statement as you claim then the feat only applied when you use magic, melee or a ranged attack. Going to suck for your players to kill someone with melee with out it being an attack...

So you are wrong. Youa re using you're own interperation of the RAW to justify a point then claiming we aren't bright enough to understand it.

We are openingly admitting to using our own intererpation of the RAW based on the common interpertation of the words.

Stop adding invisible words to a sentance if you wish to claim that you are only reading RAW. RAW is nothing with out the ability to read things comprehensively. You've shown that your comprehension of RAW is radically different from the peopel who post on the board.

 

[argo]

Each time a passage was brought up by someone else, I either was able to redirect to an appropriate example that showed the assertion to be false (as in the case of commas and the list of types of attacks)

Oh now, don't think that just because I stopped posting that argument that I concede the point. I simply don't like repeating myself (espically when I feel I have made my case).

You reading of the feat is still flawed. Opp Sacrifice requires you to slay an enemy. The entire argument over what is and isn't an attack is a sideline.

and still there's been an inundation with comments about how stubborn, bullheaded, flawed in logic or rediculously selfish my assertion is here, all with no foundation at all, all based on the fact that "Sutek can't possibly be right because no one else has said this before."

Thing of it is, sometimes the lone voice in the wilderness really is wrong.

You once argued "Occam's Razor" in one of your posts above. If everybody else here reads the feat and thinks one thing, and you are the only one thinking different, then which reading would be the more simple/intuitive one?

You've all been obstinant and incredulous, when all I felt I'd done was solve a dilema for the general Conan playing public. It's a simple solution, it doesn't affect any other rules or deffinitions in the book

Not true. If we accept your argument then quite a few killing magical spells would also be thrown out as incompatiable with Opp Sacrifice.

Later.

 

[Sutek]

Question for Sutek...

Is death touch an attack? It doesn't say anywhere in it as being an attack. So does that not count as being slayed by magic?

What about draw forth the heart?

What magic attacks are in Conan?

They are spells.

Spells are magic attacks in Conan.

Combat section, page 155, states what all the actions are that you can take in a combat round and what type of action they are. Casting Spells and doing other things with them are combat actions.

Casting Spells is covered in the combat section, and therfore are clearly attacks. Defensive Blast is no more an attack than the morale bonus gained from th Rule of Success. It just isn't.

They didn't write it well. They shouldn't have included the term "counter attack." They did, and that's confusing. A DB is just that, a blast for defense. It isn't an attack, because it is simply released as a Free Action by virtue of having PP to expend to do so. If we understand it is not an attack, then it also allows a Sorcerer to make other attacks, including AoOs that round or in oter ones, but still release a DB as a Free Action.

I think that I've discovered an easier fix that doesn't require anyone to do anything other than re-write the text to be more clear. No new rules need be drawn up to explain it better, and there is no need to drop the DB or change it entirely.

DB functions as a non-attack, and Opp Sacrifice needs an attack to be used.

Easy.

I really don't understand why you people are so bent out of shape over it other than you just dont'argue with people enough in real life so you've decided ot do it here, with me. :roll:

 

[Foxworthy]

They are spells.

Spells are magic attacks in Conan.

Combat section, page 155, states what all the actions are that you can take in a combat round and what type of action they are. Casting Spells and doing other things with them are combat actions.

Casting Spells is covered in the combat section, and therfore are clearly attacks. Defensive Blast is no more an attack than the morale bonus gained from th Rule of Success. It just isn't.

Cool, I can't wait to use the light a torch action to attack someone. Or use the heal skill as an attack....

Your lack of comprhension of the rules could be bad for people that are knew to the game.

BTW where in Opp Sac does it say magic attack?

It says Magic, Melee or Ranged Attack. It doens't say Magic attack, melee or ranged attack.

The fact that DB can only be used when you are eligible to attack should tell you that it is an attack. But apparantly common sense is anything but.

Edit: Also by your reasoning Attaco Of Oppurtnities aren't attacks. Since theya ren't on the combat action chart. Which means DB couldn't be used when you are able to make an AoO cause it's not an attack.

 

[Oly]

I think that I've discovered an easier fix that doesn't require anyone to do anything other than re-write the text to be more clear. No new rules need be drawn up to explain it better, and there is no need to drop the DB or change it entirely.

DB functions as a non-attack, and Opp Sacrifice needs an attack to be used.

Whether or not DB is an "attack" or not is a side issue, the heart of the matter is whether or not Opp. Sac. requires an attack.

If it were intended Opp. Sac. did need a "magic attack" then not only is that one sentence incredibly badly written but it would disagree with the opening paragraph where it says "slay an opponent by sorcery or combat".

You brought up Occams Razor earlier, there's two scenarios here.

1) Take the tone of Opp. Sac. from the intro text, read the later paragraph in the way English is usually read (and the way which also agrees with the first paragraph) and conclude that any magical slaying qualifies.

2) Presume the later paragraph is incredibly badly written, presume that the introduction is also badly written and rather than general implies a very specific use of magic, believe that not only was there a mistake in both of those two sections but that the agreement implied by the way both of them is written is also a third mistake, conclude that Opp. Sac only works with "magic attacks", work through the entire combat and magic section to find no explicit reference to DB being an "attack" and conclude that DB doesn't qualify.

Which is simpler?

Sure if you want to house rule that Opp. Sac requires a "magic attack" and decide that DB isn't one of those then fine, that's completely up to you.

However to try and twist the rules in such a way to support that house ruling isn't right and as has already been said it could confuse others.

 

[Trodax]

I think that I've discovered an easier fix that doesn't require anyone to do anything other than re-write the text to be more clear. No new rules need be drawn up to explain it better, and there is no need to drop the DB or change it entirely.

Just to be clear; I don't consider Opportunistic Sacrifice to be the main problem with Defensive Blast. DB+OS is a combo that has never come up in my game, and one that I would never, ever allow as it so clearly messes with the intent of DB (that you should be left without any power after using it). The problem I have with DB is that there is nothing in the rules that explicitly forbid it being used in an offensive way (tumble into the middle of your enemies and blow up - I've seen it been used this way in my game). Forbiddding the DB+OS combo is easy, making a GM call if every specific situation is "defensive enough" to allow DB is much, much harder (and will lead to grumpy players). So even if you were right in that DB+OS is not allowed, I still think DB needs some sort of removal/restriction/whatever.

That being said, I do agree with everyone else in that DB+OS is actually allowed by the RAW; you can use OS basically any time you slay an enemy in combat or with sorcery - it doesn't have to be an "attack" specifically.

 

[Spectator]

Dude's what matters if its there or not? You are the GM, if your players abuse, then don;t allow them. If they don;t then fine. I think the original intent of Defensive blast is fine, it is when the rules lawyers get all silly about it. Remmeber you are the GM you bought the darn game, do as you please. And Guess what if it gets written out of the second edition, I will 'house rule' it in (shudder the thought).

 

[Spectator]

Am I the only one who thinks Sutek cracked the riddle? I think his logic is impeccable and I think its admirable he's smart enough to actually read the rules in his defense.

 

[Sutek]

Thanks, but you may merely be treading into the vipers nest with me here.

Although I find your logic just as impeccable. :lol:

 

[Sutek]

They are spells.

Spells are magic attacks in Conan.

Combat section, page 155, states what all the actions are that you can take in a combat round and what type of action they are. Casting Spells and doing other things with them are combat actions.

Casting Spells is covered in the combat section, and therfore are clearly attacks. Defensive Blast is no more an attack than the morale bonus gained from th Rule of Success. It just isn't.

Cool, I can't wait to use the light a torch action to attack someone. Or use the heal skill as an attack....

I didnt' say an action is an attack. Obviously you're having trouble reading my posts in some way...

Your lack of comprhension of the rules could be bad for people that are knew to the game.

...and I think the word you're looking for is "new".

[BTW where in Opp Sac does it say magic attack?

It says Magic, Melee or Ranged Attack. It doens't say Magic attack, melee or ranged attack.

Well, it says it right there, in the words you yourself just typed. I used an example of another series separated by commas that reflects that series of attack types from OppSac. Look under the Handle Animal skill at the entry concerning using that skill Untrained. It lists "teach, rear, or train" but that doesn't mean your character can't teach period. It means he can't teach animals.

The fact that DB can only be used when you are eligible to attack should tell you that it is an attack. But apparantly common sense is anything but.

No, common sense dictats that any time a character can attack, a character can do one of the following instead: aid another, escape a grapple, feint, defensive blast, or even overrun. Those are just some of the things one can do when you are eligible to attack.

Edit: Also by your reasoning Attaco Of Oppurtnities aren't attacks. Since theya ren't on the combat action chart. Which means DB couldn't be used when you are able to make an AoO cause it's not an attack.

They aren't. AOOs are just that - AOOs. The occur in a limited fashion (1, unless you have COmbat Reflexes) and they occur when you are not normally eligible to attack. They are further limited by only being melee types of attacks whihc are only provoked under certain circumstances.

Besides that, the DB entry also states very clearly that you can initiate a DB when you are eligible to make an AOO, too.

Now who's suffering from a lack of comprehension?

 

[Sutek]

You brought up Occams Razor earlier, there's two scenarios here.

1) Take the tone of Opp. Sac. from the intro text, read the later paragraph in the way English is usually read (and the way which also agrees with the first paragraph) and conclude that any magical slaying qualifies.

2) Presume the later paragraph is incredibly badly written, presume that the introduction is also badly written and rather than general implies a very specific use of magic, believe that not only was there a mistake in both of those two sections but that the agreement implied by the way both of them is written is also a third mistake, conclude that Opp. Sac only works with "magic attacks", work through the entire combat and magic section to find no explicit reference to DB being an "attack" and conclude that DB doesn't qualify.

Which is simpler?

Well, fist off, tone is an emotional context, so I'd occam's razor that right he heck out of the argument. (lol)

I look at what the purpose of OppSac is. It's to alter the norm, which is that a coup de grace is needed along with Ritual Sacrifice.

A coup de grace is not an attack. It is, however, a full round action.

All the feat is doing is allowing the same result to occur, but when an standard attack slays an enemy so that the requirements for a coup de grace are no longer needed to gain the benefits. The feat is to mitigate the norm, which is stated as being a coup de grace.

Defensive Blase and Coup de Grace are in the same category, really: Actions that you can take to kill people which are not actually attacks.

 

[Sutek]

At this point Sutek, if you could also provide a succinct summary of the reasons it should not be considered an attack, maybe we can achieve some resolution on this matter to your satisfaction (everyone else seems to agree it is an attack, but hey, maybe everyone else is wrong).

Succinct? Okay....

DEFENSIVE Blast.

Stop adding invisible words to a sentance if you wish to claim that you are only reading RAW. RAW is nothing with out the ability to read things comprehensively. You've shown that your comprehension of RAW is radically different from the peopel who post on the board.

I'm not adding anything. I'm citing page numbers and other bits of writing to support my observations - no one else is. And, as I'm doing that, I'm only referenceing stuff that printed right in the book; no other sources or opinions or interpretation or tone or any of that.

As I noted above, look to the Handle Animal, Use Untrained (p90 AE)portion to see another example of a list, separated by commas, ending with the collective subject of that series, just like the series "magic, melee or ranged attack" in the OppSac feat.

I've never said that this is what I belive. I've said that this is what is written, and that's been cited and supported.

 

[Oly]

Well, fist off, tone is an emotional context, so I'd occam's razor that right he heck out of the argument.

No, the tone of that first paragraph is not an emotional one.

"Slay an opponent by sorcery or combat" seems quite simple to me, it sets up the point of the feat. If DB, which is sorcery, doesn't qualify then that first paragraph is wrong.

Why not just presume that that first paragraph is right? This doesn't require the creation of a new term "magic attack", the argument over it's definition and further debate as to whether or not DB counts.

There's a choice between that second sentence meaning "magic" (a term which is used often) or "magic attack" (a term which is never used anywhere in the book).

If you believe that there is such a rules definition as "magic attack" then that sentence is ambiguous, which is bad writing and editing. Even in that case it would be possible to resolve the ambiguity by looking at the first paragraph.

Understanding that there is no rules definition of a "magic attack" removes any ambiguity from the sentence and makes the feat work exactly the way the introductory paragraph says that it does.

 

[Oly]

I've never said that this is what I belive. I've said that this is what is written, and that's been cited and supported.

What's written is:

"slay an opponent by sorcery or combat"

and

"whether by magic, melee, or ranged attacks"

From that you're creating a new term "magic attack", having a long debate over what a "magic attack" is and having another debate over whether DB qualifies.

In the end you construct a meaning and context for that second statement which contradicts the first.

Oh and remember the two errors (well three in a way) that you're saying that feat has in it. Firstly that the first sentence is inaccurately broad, second that ambiguity was allowed into that second sentence and finally that the agreement between those two statements as are written is also coincidentally wrong.

DB and Opp. Sac. have been discusses many times on this forum. Never once has anyone from Mongoose posted something like:

Just to clarify how Opp. Sac works, it requires a "magic attack" not just "magic", sorry some bad editing allowed an ambiguous statement through there. Oh and we also got the first paragraph of that feat wrong, it implies something more specific than it reads at the moment. Connected to this we also missed out the section of the rules that defines exactly what a "magic attack" is and entries in the spell sections indicating which of them qualifies as a "magic attack" and which doesn't.

 

[Foxworthy]

They are spells.

Spells are magic attacks in Conan.

Combat section, page 155, states what all the actions are that you can take in a combat round and what type of action they are. Casting Spells and doing other things with them are combat actions.

Casting Spells is covered in the combat section, and therfore are clearly attacks. Defensive Blast is no more an attack than the morale bonus gained from th Rule of Success. It just isn't.

Cool, I can't wait to use the light a torch action to attack someone. Or use the heal skill as an attack....

I didnt' say an action is an attack. Obviously you're having trouble reading my posts in some way...

Ok, go reread your quote. Read it again, and one more time cause you don't know what you said.

Casting Spells is covered in the combat section, and therefore are clearly attacks.

Therefore lighting a torch is a combat action. Thank you for not being able to comprehend your own post. Now if you'd like to reread the combat chart please tell me where the Attack (Magic) entry is? Oh wait... it's not there... I wonder why...

Your lack of comprhension of the rules could be bad for people that are knew to the game.

...and I think the word you're looking for is "new".

It's a typo. I also misspelled comprehension. I'm surprised you didn't pick that up.

[BTW where in Opp Sac does it say magic attack?

It says Magic, Melee or Ranged Attack. It doens't say Magic attack, melee or ranged attack.

Well, it says it right there, in the words you yourself just typed. I used an example of another series separated by commas that reflects that series of attack types from OppSac. Look under the Handle Animal skill at the entry concerning using that skill Untrained. It lists "teach, rear, or train" but that doesn't mean your character can't teach period. It means he can't teach animals.

I missed an N on doesn't, you forgot to mention that. I agree with handle animal. The difference is that OppSac doesn't put the word Attack after magic. As such why would it apply to magic attacks as opposed to just magic. Which is supported by the feat saying by sorcery or combat...

The fact that DB can only be used when you are eligible to attack should tell you that it is an attack. But apparantly common sense is anything but.

No, common sense dictats that any time a character can attack, a character can do one of the following instead: aid another, escape a grapple, feint, defensive blast, or even overrun. Those are just some of the things one can do when you are eligible to attack.

I spelt apparently wrong. Damn typos. Kind of like your typo on Dictates. Actually you can do those things even if you're not eligible to attack. All you need is a standard action. Hell if you could only do aid another in combat that be a pretty crappy thing for searches and what not. Though it's rare for someone to have a standard action and not be eligible to attack.

Edit: Also by your reasoning Attaco Of Oppurtnities aren't attacks. Since theya ren't on the combat action chart. Which means DB couldn't be used when you are able to make an AoO cause it's not an attack.

They aren't. AOOs are just that - AOOs. The occur in a limited fashion (1, unless you have COmbat Reflexes) and they occur when you are not normally eligible to attack. They are further limited by only being melee types of attacks whihc are only provoked under certain circumstances.

Besides that, the DB entry also states very clearly that you can initiate a DB when you are eligible to make an AOO, too.

Now who's suffering from a lack of comprehension?

I typo-ed the shit out of that edit. Guess that's what happens when I try to type fast on a shitty keyboard.

Attack Of Opportunities are free attacks. It says so in the combat section under the description of Attack Of Opportunities. Which goes to show you that if you can use DB then it must be an attack, since AoO only let you make attacks and even then the attacks are limited. But I doubt you'll get past the other points in this thread.

 

[Foxworthy]

Stop adding invisible words to a sentance if you wish to claim that you are only reading RAW. RAW is nothing with out the ability to read things comprehensively. You've shown that your comprehension of RAW is radically different from the peopel who post on the board.

I'm not adding anything. I'm citing page numbers and other bits of writing to support my observations - no one else is. And, as I'm doing that, I'm only referenceing stuff that printed right in the book; no other sources or opinions or interpretation or tone or any of that.

As I noted above, look to the Handle Animal, Use Untrained (p90 AE)portion to see another example of a list, separated by commas, ending with the collective subject of that series, just like the series "magic, melee or ranged attack" in the OppSac feat.

I've never said that this is what I belive. I've said that this is what is written, and that's been cited and supported.

Except no magic attack exits in the rules. So instead or reading it as a magic you add a an attack and are reading it as magic attacks. A comma does not mean that the word attack applies to ever word in the sentance before it. Technically it doesn't apply to melee either. Logic assumes that you apply it to melee. The RAW does not though. Of course logic assumes that anytime you slay an opponent you get to use Opp Sac.

You're understand of the sentance is wrong. Magic Attack does not exit in the game. Nothing in the book is a magic attack. Many things are magic that can kill. But you can hold onto your horrible understanding of the rules. I just feel sorry for those that listen to you. Many people from many parts of the world read these forums and they may think that your perversion of the feat is right. Of course I'm not sure you've ever been right about anything.

 

[Foxworthy]

Dude's what matters if its there or not? You are the GM, if your players abuse, then don;t allow them. If they don;t then fine. I think the original intent of Defensive blast is fine, it is when the rules lawyers get all silly about it. Remmeber you are the GM you bought the darn game, do as you please. And Guess what if it gets written out of the second edition, I will 'house rule' it in (shudder the thought).

Defensive Blast has nothign to do with the Hyborian World. I've never seen it in the stories, movies or the horrible TV show. A walking fireball is DnD. If people wnated to play Conan with DnD rules they would have just used the SRD as is.

The only reason for defensive blast is for power gamers who think that they should be able to use thier scholar in melee.